I've yet to make a single relatively reliable friend!

[Eberon]

Yeah. I like the new way much more. I want civs to be friendly with me because it's beneficial for them, not because I'm a pretty cool lady. When I play Civ with my friends, I attack them when I think it's the best choice, and I work with them when I think I'll benefit. I want the AIs to be as much like that as possible.

Thats the thing though isnt it? If they would DoW when it benefits them and work the peace angle when it benefited them that would be pretty cool. But they dont. They war whenever they CAN not just when it makes sense.

Did you ever notice that the AI generaly only expands in one direction. They often leave huge tracts of land unused behind them. Just something I thought I would point out.

 

[Clement]

Every time I have liberated an AI, they almost immediately start with the insults. Half the time I end up taking them over again to put us both out of our misery.

Yeah same here, whether you prefer "AI plays as human" or "AI roleplays as a nation" it is'nt how diplomacy should be in either case, both versions should be if not happy, then at least cautiously content to be back in the game after their capital is liberated, in my humble opinion.

 

[SuperJay]

I'm pretty reliable, and I'll be your friend too.

 

[Clement]

I'm pretty reliable, and I'll be your friend too.

Alright you got to let me win though

 

[fantsu]

It's because Firaxis, in all their wisdom, decided to turn the AIs from simulated civilizations into nothing more than players playing a board game. They will turn on you the second the believe they have an opportunity to take you out, because they are playing to win.

Completely breaks the immersion of the game for me

True, but sadly the AI doesn't know the VC's at all, and thus fails even in this.

 

[SuperJay]

Alright you got to let me win though

Haha sure. If you win, it's definitely because I "let" you, not because I'm clueless.

 

[Danei]

Thats the thing though isnt it? If they would DoW when it benefits them and work the peace angle when it benefited them that would be pretty cool. But they dont. They war whenever they CAN not just when it makes sense.

Personally, that hasn't been my experience. AIs have been happy to be peaceful with me when it made sense, especially when I was trying to be their friends. This includes civs that shared a border with me, and civs that had stronger militaries than me. I won a Deity level cultural victory without ever going to war the entire game (which I think was evidence of bad AI of a different sort--they SHOULD have DoWed me because I had no military).

In any case, that obviously hasn't been the experience of a lot of players, so if they are indeed warring just for the heck of it, they should stop that. Or rather, adjustments should be made to the AI's determination of what is in its best interest.

 

[Clement]

Can you imagine if an AI leader popped up with a gift for you just cos they appreciated your years of peace and honest trading? i think that kind of attitude from the AI is what i'm missing most.

If you like war they could pop up with tribute instead i guess

 

[DaveGold]

The difficulty is that you have treat them as an AI and also treat them as player, i.e. they never forget your faults, you have to work continuously to improve a relation score, and they'll stab you in the back whatever. In other words, you get the worst of all worlds. Someone in the design team doesn't seem to realise how badly players are treated by AI diplomacy.

I've had to abandon a game at 1850 just because the AI was so broken the game couldn't be continued.

 

[Danei]

Can you imagine if an AI leader popped up with a gift for you just cos they appreciated your years of peace and honest trading? i think that kind of attitude from the AI is what i'm missing most.

I think this is just a difference of opinion. That sort of thing is what I disliked about previous versions--There's no incentive for an AI to do that, because it's not going to make me like them.
Maybe if there was a gameplay effect, for example, an AI gifts me something, and it increases my global happiness (other civs love us!), but if I later attack them, that increase is gone and I get a global happiness penalty for a while (We're upset that you attacked a former friend!), then I'd like it.

 

[Clement]

I think this is just a difference of opinion. That sort of thing is what I disliked about previous versions--There's no incentive for an AI to do that, because it's not going to make me like them.
Maybe if there was a gameplay effect, for example, an AI gifts me something, and it increases my global happiness (other civs love us!), but if I later attack them, that increase is gone and I get a global happiness penalty for a while (We're upset that you attacked a former friend!), then I'd like it.

fair enough, for my own part if an AI leader would pop up with a gift or even a kind word it would effect my attitude in a positive way towards said leader, it builds an interesting story, i think it's probably just the way i play the game.

 

[Eberon]

There's no incentive for an AI to do that, because it's not going to make me like them.

So if you are deciding to go agressive on an opponent or not their good will and gifts carry no weight at all? Sure as hell works on me.

 

[Danei]

So if you are deciding to go agressive on an opponent or not their good will and gifts carry no weight at all? Sure as hell works on me.

No weight whatsoever, unless they're gifting me the things I want from them. If I'm going to attack someone to get their luxuries, I won't do it if they're gifting me those luxuries, obviously (and I'd probably demand those luxuries in diplomacy before going to war, if they're not gifting them). But I don't avoid attacking AIs just because they're nice to me. By the same token, I don't attack AIs just because they're mean to me. I do what I think is best for my civ.

As far as I'm concerned, a gift from an AI to me is just the AI acquiescing to a demand I haven't actually made. I.e. it's a bribe to keep me from attacking them because I'm going to lose their gift.

 

[Abraxis]

It would be nice if they brought back the "how do you feel about so and so" question. I can understand taking away the modifiers to make diplomacy seem more realistic, but what's not realistic about asking someone's opinion, like in the other games?

Also, it seems (at emperor anyways) that as soon as you either declare war on someone, or take over someone's capitol who declared war on you, you can forget about ever being friends with ANY civ you are currently in contact with, even if they're out there crushing city states.

With the current diplomacy model, it would be nice if you could have casus belli against a civ, and not take such a huge penalty for going to war. Also, it would be nice if you could tell them to get their troops off your borders. It would only be fair.

 

[Clement]

It would be nice if they brought back the "how do you feel about so and so" question. I can understand taking away the modifiers to make diplomacy seem more realistic, but what's not realistic about asking someone's opinion, like in the other games?

Also, it seems (at emperor anyways) that as soon as you either declare war on someone, or take over someone's capitol who declared war on you, you can forget about ever being friends with ANY civ you are currently in contact with, even if they're out there crushing city states.

With the current diplomacy model, it would be nice if you could have casus belli against a civ, and not take such a huge penalty for going to war. Also, it would be nice if you could tell them to get their troops off your borders. It would only be fair.

Very good idea's, i'd like to be able to ask leaders how they feel about the other ones too, only problem is they seem to change their mind so often i'd have to ask every few turns.

 

[toccoto]

Protip:

Your best friend in Civ V is the one that is one civ away from you.

A | B | C - If you are at A, shmooze Leader C. You will be able to keep a really good friend.

 

[Clement]

Protip:

Your best friend in Civ V is the one that is one civ away from you.

A | B | C - If you are at A, shmooze Leader C. You will be able to keep a really good friend.

Kind of takes the fun out of it though, i'd like the possiblity of friendship and co-operation with any Civ, wherever they may be.

 

[r_rolo1]

Protip:

Your best friend in Civ V is the one that is one civ away from you.

A | B | C - If you are at A, shmooze Leader C. You will be able to keep a really good friend.

That until C eats B or you eat B.

 

[toccoto]

That until C eats B or you eat B.

Yes but THEN you befriend D.

Obviously I'm being facetious. As for being able to be friends with everyone. You can try. And honestly you can succeed to at least be civil. But you need a big army. Peaceful games still require Army. I wonder if a lot of people's trouble with the AI declaring war is because of this.

Makes me want to start a story game where I try to limit milatary and instead keep safe through making civs fight each other and getting defensive pacts, etc. Just to see if there are civs that will befriend someone without an army.

 

[Danei]

Makes me want to start a story game where I try to limit milatary and instead keep safe through making civs fight each other and getting defensive pacts, etc. Just to see if there are civs that will befriend someone without an army.

I've done this (cultural victory), on Deity, with one military unit the entire game (a war elephant). Either that was one intimidating elephant, or AIs don't automatically DoW you if you can't defend yourself. I got involved in a few pacts of cooperation, but no pacts of secrecy or defensive pacts, and I kept my empire very small.

Civs demanded gifts from me a couple of times (which I gave them), and they often asked me to get involved in their wars (which I gave the polite refusal), but they never got angry with me for any reason that I could see, and many of them even asked for open borders with me (which I gave) so they could move through my territory to fight each other.